fix(SetupChecks): Pass webfinger if the handler returns 400 too #49440
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
/backport to stable30 |
|
/backport to stable29 |
joshtrichards
changed the title
social) is enabled
joshtrichards
changed the title
come-nc
approved these changes
Nov 25, 2024
Merged
|
/backport to stable31 |
Signed-off-by: Josh <[email protected]>
AndyScherzinger
force-pushed
the
fix-setupcheck-webfinger-400
branch
from
9403728 to
b452dc0
Compare
susnux
approved these changes
Jan 26, 2025
|
Cypress unrelated |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
When running a check against
/.well-known/webfingerin a stock install the checks are fine, but when an actualwebfingerhandler is installed (like thesocialapp) the return code is going to be 400 per the spec1 since the setup check isn't providing a?resourcevalue (and we're not going to).Semi-related: nextcloud/social#1951 (because we were returning a 500 error since our check doesn't pass a
resourcevalue and now once merged that'll return a 400 as per the spec; though our checks obviously wouldn't have passed either way).TODO
Checklist
Footnotes
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7033#section-4.2 ↩